Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Precisely, yes. It's frustrating simply not to see any other lab replicating or, at least, trying to replicate these experiment and publish their results with spectrums.

Mills aggressively pursues anybody trying to independently replicate his work and shuts them down.

There's one allegedly truly independent replication I've heard of where the researcher is alleged not to have even contacted Mills until after he'd found results, but even that is just a finding of anomalous energy. I can't remember what the study is off the top of my head but I'll have a look for it when I've got time, if you like. Maybe tomorrow, maybe over the weekend.

You hit the problem, Clinger! The three-body has an EXACT solution, using numerical methods (iterations), and I mean EXACT speaking about that the numerical result derived by the formula replicate EXACTLY the measurable one. Yet, these kind of math trick is very similar to the iterative methods used by all the QM methods to calculate the energy levels of atoms and molecules. But, in this case, the "solution" is only the final convergence of the numerical method (pointing to the lower energy level of a multidiminesional potential surface) and, IT NOT COINCIDE with the experimental one. There is ALWASY the so-called "correlation error", as my old professor Sironi said to us.

I am glad you understand the distinction between "exact" and "closed form". Mills has often used the word "exact" as though it were a synonym for "closed form", leading some (including optiongeek) to make that same mistake.

Whether calculations agree with experiment is of course the ultimate arbiter. In this thread, various spot checks have found that calculations based on standard quantum mechanics are in better agreement with experiment than calculations based on Mills's equations, in some cases by as much as two decimal orders of magnitude. (For less spectacular examples, see here and here.)

Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG

I mean, another time: THIS is the main problem. If (assuming) I could use the most powerful supercomputer, the actual QM model can't simulate in the right way the behaviour of atom and molecules, denying to us to have the possibility to exactly forecast any physico-chemical event. We can only continue to make "better approximations", but, the "correlation error" is always present.

I am glad you understand the distinction between "exact" and "closed form". Mills has often used the word "exact" as though it were a synonym for "closed form", leading some (including optiongeek) to make that same mistake.

Going by his lack of response to your post covering spin, the fine structure constant, etc. I think that's a fine example of exactly the kind of post that you wouldn't commonly find in the places that he is trying to recommend to our newest member.

Precisely, yes. It's frustrating simply not to see any other lab replicating or, at least, trying to replicate these experiment and publish their results with spectrums. Has someone found any publication that I can finally read?

Thanks for your post, Marco.

However, you did not actually answer either of the questions I asked. May I ask why?

I am still interested in reading your answers to those questions.

What steps did you take to investigate the veracity of the Mills’ spectra? How did you go about trying to determine what other, relevant, spectra have been published?

I am glad you understand the distinction between "exact" and "closed form". Mills has often used the word "exact" as though it were a synonym for "closed form", leading some to make that same mistake.

Whether calculations agree with experiment is of course the ultimate arbiter. In this thread, various spot checks have found that calculations based on standard quantum mechanics are in better agreement with experiment than calculations based on Mills's equations, in some cases by as much as two decimal orders of magnitude. (For less spectacular examples, see here and here.)

When you speak of "correlation error", do you mean this kind of thing

Or are you merely referring to the degree of correlation between calculation and experiment?

Hi Clinger.

Yes, about the "correlation error" I mean this "kind of thing" (sorry I can't post URLs yet...): it's a sort of uneliminable error in the numerical iterations done on the QM basis sets. Maybe, about that, you just heard about the linear combination of atomic orbital, which are, in the QM softwares, substituted by gaussians centered on the nuclei, and the "starting point" of any QM calculation.

And, to be clear, I did a lot of calculations also with Millsian, which is the "CP" software for atom and molecules by Mills and his theories. I must admit that for a chemist is very fascinating, because of the presence of explicit "valence bond orbitals" (another time, if you studied something of computational chemistry, this is a VERY difficult problem -nearly impossible if the molecule has more that 10 electrons- for all QM models). So, Millsian: I found in it a BIG mistake, maybe in an other post I will send you images and values about it (I must seek deeper in my PC ). But, to be short, I've generated different geometries with an "example" molecule, modifying in it only the position of one atom trying to see what would be the energy differencies: NONE. That's it: the "orbispheres" of the bonds will only change in shape but not in energy. In this state, no way that this kind of software will be useful for predictions and any forecast or simulations (time dependency?) having this discrepancy. Anyway I'm quite optimistic that maybe the software will by updated and this kind of error eliminated, because is really too "amatorial": it's possible that some calculation modules ar simply absent. I mean, for now Millsian is: you can only insert structures, see the orbispheres and see the energy levels (in a quite a good-looking way LOL). It that way it seems more like the Dulong's formula to empirically calculate the heat of formation/combustion of some structures by an add-method.

But, also the QM error is ALWAYS present, and yes, in SOME cases (the most simple ones) the correlation error is very little, so also the energy number is also very good. It's the best APPROXIMATION we have, but I still remain deluded about this because IT'S NOT AN EXACT model and it will not predict what a molecule will do, exactly and physically, also using a supercomputer (the calculation "diverge" or "converge" at some numbers, period).

In other words: as the Newtonian machanics is TOTALLY useful to make exact forecasts about what will happen to a spaceship sended to Mars or other places out of Earth, at this time we haven't this tool for the prediction or exact simulation of what to expect about any atom and molecules system.

To JeanTate: you mean this question?

Originally Posted by JeanTate

(my bold)
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to first establish the veracity of those results?

Yes, I totally agree. But, how to do it? If not only replicating the experiments and measuring independently the results? So, lacking of labs and instruments, I can only seek about someone that's interested, work on it in his lab, and after it will publish something to read...

Hope you like my contribution.
I really want to know if dismiss Mills or not (and it's not easy), passing more time on something more interesting.
Greetings.
MM

Yes, about the "correlation error" I mean this "kind of thing" (sorry I can't post URLs yet...):

Hello Marco,
You can post it as "https support.google.com chrome_webstore answer 2664769?hl=en", by removing parts of the URL and one of us can fix it for you

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

I really want to know if dismiss Mills or not (and it's not easy), passing more time on something more interesting.

I believe the (nearly) uniform answer to this question you will get in this forum is that you are wasting your time on Mills. However, in my opinion you are not. There is extensive evidence - which for some reason is irrationally disregarded on this thread - that strongly supports Mills' theory - evidence I've experienced first hand and would be happy to point you towards.

However, better than any evidence I can provide, you have direct, first-hand knowledge gained from your own curiosity. The mathematical and computational conclusions you have drawn from your own experience are correct. As you say, you've spent years evaluating computational chemistry packages based on QM and found how dismally they perform in real life. You have compared these packages to Millsian and been astonished how much better Millsian performs on these same problems. While you have noted one or more potential errors in Millsian, you have helpfully suggested possible improvements.

You ask questions such as whether Mills is spending his time drawing Raman spectography results. No - in my experience, he is not someone who would falsify results. I spoken to many professional investors, lawyers and due diligence experts who have looked deeply at Dr. Mills over the years. There have been exactly zero accusations of fraud of any kind from that effort.

I think there are lots of folks with an interest the Mills theory who would love to hear from you and provide effective challenge. I imagine Dr. Mills would be interested in your suggestions as well. I just don't think you'll find many of those folks at this forum. You're not wasting your time studying Mills' theory. You're wasting your time trying to discuss Mills' theory here.

There is extensive evidence - which for some reason is irrationally disregarded on this thread - that strongly supports Mills' theory - evidence I've experienced first hand and would be happy to point you towards.

Well point us towards it. The problem with your statement is that the "evidence" always tracks back to Mills and BLP who have a track record of lying (or just egregiously wrong if you insist on being naive).

The true irrationality comes from Mills supporters who expect us to believe that the entire world, which consists of competing countries, competing companies, competing universities, and competing scientists, is completely overlooking this breakthrough that would be a game changer in the 9 trillion dollar per year energy sector.

There is no extensive evidence that can be verified to be what it claims to be.

BTW Can you cite anyone who has purchased Product Hydrino® “in a bottle"?

__________________REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

I believe the (nearly) uniform answer to this question you will get in this forum is that you are wasting your time on Mills. However, in my opinion you are not. There is extensive evidence - which for some reason is irrationally disregarded on this thread - that strongly supports Mills' theory - evidence I've experienced first hand and would be happy to point you towards.

However, better than any evidence I can provide, you have direct, first-hand knowledge gained from your own curiosity. The mathematical and computational conclusions you have drawn from your own experience are correct. As you say, you've spent years evaluating computational chemistry packages based on QM and found how dismally they perform in real life. You have compared these packages to Millsian and been astonished how much better Millsian performs on these same problems. While you have noted one or more potential errors in Millsian, you have helpfully suggested possible improvements.

You ask questions such as whether Mills is spending his time drawing Raman spectography results. No - in my experience, he is not someone who would falsify results. I spoken to many professional investors, lawyers and due diligence experts who have looked deeply at Dr. Mills over the years. There have been exactly zero accusations of fraud of any kind from that effort.

I think there are lots of folks with an interest the Mills theory who would love to hear from you and provide effective challenge. I imagine Dr. Mills would be interested in your suggestions as well. I just don't think you'll find many of those folks at this forum. You're not wasting your time studying Mills' theory. You're wasting your time trying to discuss Mills' theory here.

Unhappily, I just didn't read anything fresh and outside of Mills and BrLP or BLP, as other here are (rightly) appointing. I must admit that there isn't so much experimental effort in evaluating and/or proving/disproving the theory.

Anyway, Millsian is now only adding precalculated energy levels of different structures from the addition of the constituent functional groups. This approach, if I'm not wrong, was also just admitted by them on their page.

Deep in my answer-question self-thinking, I want to see new models for the atomic world, that are EXACT and not only modular or empirical. The problem I faced, the same energy levels for different geometries, is evidencing a real big problem: the model in that way is unuseful because a "pot with some atoms" in ANY geomtry will have the same energy of the same atoms constituting real molecules. Reality is different. Nor Millsian nor QM furnish us the solution.

The "hydrino problem" is a different matter, because: given the exactness of the Mills' electronic model, MAYBE the lower-energy levels of hydrogen COULD be possible. But for me it's still an assumption, and maybe also Schrodinger would permit it, why not?... Until now I also admit that I don't have the math skills to deepen and check all the Mills assertions in his book. I'm only fascinated by the 2D shell (like a "Bohr version 2) and the exact numbers given in the attached table (deriving a lot of fundamental values ab initio), and, obviously, by the orbispheres of the molecular bonds . It's remarkable, yes, but I must be sure for go ahead.

Also Mills' purpose is remarkable, but I don't get why, if hydrino works, hydrino products are lating so much to be spread...

I can't explain Mills' go to market strategy other than I know that he seems very focused on protecting his IP rights.

You asked whether Mills is drawing Raman spectography results. A lot of people with more skin in the game than anyone on this board have looked at that question. So far I haven't heard of anyone who has made a credible allegation of fraud.

I can't explain Mills' go to market strategy other than I know that he seems very focused on protecting his IP rights.

You asked whether Mills is drawing Raman spectography results. A lot of people with more skin in the game than anyone on this board have looked at that question. So far I haven't heard of anyone who has made a credible allegation of fraud.

And yes, the lepton mass ratio equations are another amazing result.

One doesn't make allegations of fraud in the scientific literature. One cannot even call somebody a complete clown in said literature. One can only imply it. And that has essentially been done, as one author (kunz?) showed that the results he was reporting could not have been obtained with the equipment he was using. Only people like me, and others, in places like this, can accuse him of being a clueless clown. Which he is.

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

My opinion on the rather few close calculations that Mills can get, are that they are not amazing.

The test of a theory is not whether it can 'sort of' get one result similar to the existing theory, but on whether it answers the breadth of knowledge that the existing gives.

Mills is not the first one to use a semi-classical model of the electron to attempt to solve certain aspects of it. I have seen modeling of the electron as a torus. The size of the torus was much too large to be reasonable, but the construction arguably gave correct results for several physical results, and attempted (badly, IMO) to explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Still, it went much farther than the failed attempts to describe the electron as a tiny ball.

It is not unsurprising that a few physical constants can be approximated by classical constructions. But, can they all? Do they explain all of physics?

Quantum Mechanics works. The weirdness of quantum mechanics is required to explain the natural world, and the calculations (for things we can calculate and measure) are within experiment error. There is a cottage industry around people trying to interpret QM in a more classical way, and see how far it gets them. But, it always fails in some other way.

Mills doesn't do science. He does smoke and mirrors.

If hydrinos existed, any halfway decent scientist working at BLP would have it proven within a few years, and have their Nobel prize already.

Yes, about the "correlation error" I mean this "kind of thing" (sorry I can't post URLs yet...): it's a sort of uneliminable error in the numerical iterations done on the QM basis sets. Maybe, about that, you just heard about the linear combination of atomic orbital, which are, in the QM softwares, substituted by gaussians centered on the nuclei, and the "starting point" of any QM calculation.

That may be the "starting point" for the calculations of interest to you or relevant to this thread, but "any" goes too far. (I am not a physicist, much less a quantum mechanic, but I was introduced to quantum mechanics almost 50 years ago by a physical chemist who hired me to do QM calculations. Only a few of those calculations involved atoms or nuclei.)

Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG

And, to be clear, I did a lot of calculations also with Millsian, which is the "CP" software for atom and molecules by Mills and his theories....I found in it a BIG mistake....In this state, no way that this kind of software will be useful for predictions and any forecast or simulations (time dependency?) having this discrepancy. Anyway I'm quite optimistic that maybe the software will by updated and this kind of error eliminated, because is really too "amatorial": it's possible that some calculation modules ar simply absent.

Interesting.

Welcome to the forum. I look forward to reading your contributions.

Quote:

Until now I also admit that I don't have the math skills to deepen and check all the Mills assertions in his book.

Some of the participants in this thread and its predecessors have the math skills, but have found it hard to take the book seriously after reading its preface and watching an advocate of the book (markie) deny the shell theorem and its significance for months and years. Let us know if you need help checking some particular assertion.

That may be the "starting point" for the calculations of interest to you or relevant to this thread, but "any" goes too far. (I am not a physicist, much less a quantum mechanic, but I was introduced to quantum mechanics almost 50 years ago by a physical chemist who hired me to do QM calculations. Only a few of those calculations involved atoms or nuclei.)

Sorry, I wrote something unprecise. I meant any QM calculation involving atoms and molecules (or, more simply, multiple nucleis and electrons). I've also spent time at college studying other kind of more simple problems like the electron in shell and other ab initio models for successive studies on statistical thermodynamics, where obviously the basis set was totally absent (no atomic orbitals).

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Interesting.

Welcome to the forum. I look forward to reading your contributions.

I'm attaching here the two frames from Millsian I was talking about...
Take a look at the two energies: 212.6786 eV in both case. Take into account that, for inserting MY structure and not the one from the "smile" notation, I used an other software (Avogadro, freeware) to save a simple MMFF94-optimized structure in ".pdb" format (the most diffused). Once you put the structure, Millsian will give you nearly instantly the orbispheres and the energy level.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Some of the participants in this thread and its predecessors have the math skills, but have found it and watching an advocate of the book (markie) deny the shell theorem and its significance for months and years. Let us know if you need help checking some particular assertion.

I'll be happy if some of them can gently give me an explatantion with math demostrations of the weirdness of the book (maybe in an other thread or privately, to not put totally OT here). I promised to me that I will study more math to read this kind of things so to be objective with my own thoughts.

For the rest, may I avoid all the squads in here? I'm simply trying to better understand and not to label someone as "clown", "fan", "believer" and other. I think that IF Mills is a scammer, only him an his lab people will enjoy or gain/earn anything by the thing. For sure not some poor nerds people like us debating in this tiny corner of the web.

For now, simply I can't trash ALL Mills assertions because, like in the lepton masses, I think ANYONE in the past didn't do it in a so simple and ab initio way. Am I wrong? I also read his explanations for other weird physics experiment, like the electron bubbles in liquid helium. And they seem very predictive. The guy uses his head modeling with math real facts, so something good in his career was surely constructive and born from genuine curiosity. So I must take seriously into account also his bound electron model, before to trash it, don't you? ...And these Raman spectrums... Are someone seriously thinking that are all drawn?

My opinion on the rather few close calculations that Mills can get, are that they are not amazing.

The test of a theory is not whether it can 'sort of' get one result similar to the existing theory, but on whether it answers the breadth of knowledge that the existing gives.

Mills is not the first one to use a semi-classical model of the electron to attempt to solve certain aspects of it. I have seen modeling of the electron as a torus. The size of the torus was much too large to be reasonable, but the construction arguably gave correct results for several physical results, and attempted (badly, IMO) to explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Still, it went much farther than the failed attempts to describe the electron as a tiny ball.

Are you maybe talking about the Santilli atomic model? An other very interesting one. Also in his publications you found a LOT of weird math. He also worked A LOT on the hadronic mechanics (neutron and protons) and giving also some schemes of "natural" nuclear fusion given by the nuclear spin coupling (I repeat: I don't have math skills to go deeper...).

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

It is not unsurprising that a few physical constants can be approximated by classical constructions. But, can they all? Do they explain all of physics?

To me, yes (it's surprising). If it was not surprising, it means that you can find in the past other closed-form derivation like those ones. Maybe you can give me such other examples? tnx in advance

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

Quantum Mechanics works. The weirdness of quantum mechanics is required to explain the natural world, and the calculations (for things we can calculate and measure) are within experiment error. There is a cottage industry around people trying to interpret QM in a more classical way, and see how far it gets them. But, it always fails in some other way.

So, QM works QUITE good, right? It's simply not 100% working. THIS is the problem. We're still looking for an EXACT model.

Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99

Mills doesn't do science. He does smoke and mirrors.

If hydrinos existed, any halfway decent scientist working at BLP would have it proven within a few years, and have their Nobel prize already.

Assumptions and labeling. Difficult and useless to trash ALL his ideas with "HE DOES IT" (smoke and mirrors).

The thing is, Mills is both internally inconsistent (hydrinos are both non-reactive dark matter AND at the same time can make compounds), his mathematics are wrong and ignore basic premises like the shell theorem, he has promised a functional machine 'next year' for the past 30 years and extrapolating his theory would require nature to not function as it is observed to function.

To expand on the latter, the mechanism allegedly used by Mills to force hydrogen into his putative hydrino state (well mechanism as that changes every 5 years or so as well) are ludicrously low energy processes, which if true would occur in nature in numerous places.
The bottom of the ocean rifts for instance should, if Mills was right, be a near continuous transformation zone of hydrogen to hydrino. The energy Mills claims to get from his putative millisecond reactions is so high that, if true, these zones should resemble a series of nuclear fission bombs going off all the time.
Yet they are not.

If Mill's theories were true Jupiter would be either gone, or at least a functional star. But it isnt. The sun should produce orders of magnitude more energy than it does.

Mills afaik never even adresses this and his followers here handwave it all away, but no mathematics will ever remove the fact that Mill's 'theories' make all our observations in nature wrong, which is the opposite of what a new theory should do.

(my bold)
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to first establish the veracity of those results?

Yes, I totally agree.

Glad to read this!

Quote:

But, how to do it? If not only replicating the experiments and measuring independently the results? So, lacking of labs and instruments, I can only seek about someone that's interested, work on it in his lab, and after it will publish something to read...

From what you write, you seem to have done some investigation, but from one point of view only.

So, what did you do to see if there are any reports - in papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, for example - of similar results? What did you find?

What steps did you take to establish the veracity of Mills' claims themselves? I mean, for example, how did you determine that they're not fake (created entirely with something like PhotoShop, say)?

From what you've posted so far, in this thread, I get the impression that you did very little to establish veracity. Instead, you seem to have accepted the Mills' results without any significant scrutiny.

Quote:

Hope you like my contribution.

I have to be honest: I don't like it, because - so far - you seem to be approaching this with a great deal of bias (admittedly, it's openly stated bias), and seem to be using the scientific method in a very loose sense only.

Quote:

I really want to know if dismiss Mills or not (and it's not easy), passing more time on something more interesting.
Greetings.
MM

I'll post about this in more detail later, but all one needs to dismiss Mills' claims is a robust case where his estimate (using his so-called theory) of the value of a parameter is inconsistent with a well-established, experimental value (there are, of course, other ways to dismiss such claims).

In this thread, and its predecessors, several such robust cases have been written about.

I believe the (nearly) uniform answer to this question you will get in this forum is that you are wasting your time on Mills. However, in my opinion you are not. There is extensive evidence - which for some reason is irrationally disregarded on this thread - that strongly supports Mills' theory - evidence I've experienced first hand and would be happy to point you towards.

However, better than any evidence I can provide, you have direct, first-hand knowledge gained from your own curiosity. The mathematical and computational conclusions you have drawn from your own experience are correct. As you say, you've spent years evaluating computational chemistry packages based on QM and found how dismally they perform in real life. You have compared these packages to Millsian and been astonished how much better Millsian performs on these same problems. While you have noted one or more potential errors in Millsian, you have helpfully suggested possible improvements.

You ask questions such as whether Mills is spending his time drawing Raman spectography results. No - in my experience, he is not someone who would falsify results. I spoken to many professional investors, lawyers and due diligence experts who have looked deeply at Dr. Mills over the years. There have been exactly zero accusations of fraud of any kind from that effort.

I think there are lots of folks with an interest the Mills theory who would love to hear from you and provide effective challenge. I imagine Dr. Mills would be interested in your suggestions as well. I just don't think you'll find many of those folks at this forum. You're not wasting your time studying Mills' theory. You're wasting your time trying to discuss Mills' theory here.

This is far from the first time you've written posts like this here, and indeed in Reddit too.

However, to speak of wasting one's time, I think it would indeed be such to go over the same questions (etc) you seem to avoid, questions which go to the heart of whether it is logical - or even reasonable - to consider "Mills' theory" as part of science.

Many (but by no means all!) such questions (etc) can be summarized as "how do you address {this well-established} inconsistency in Mill's theory?"

I do not expect you, optiongeek, to suddenly start addressing these; however, I'm curious to hear from you as to why you seem reluctant to even acknowledge their existence.

Deep in my answer-question self-thinking, I want to see new models for the atomic world, that are EXACT and not only modular or empirical. The problem I faced, the same energy levels for different geometries, is evidencing a real big problem: the model in that way is unuseful because a "pot with some atoms" in ANY geomtry will have the same energy of the same atoms constituting real molecules. Reality is different. Nor Millsian nor QM furnish us the solution.

<snip>

(my hilite)

Marco, you've used the term "EXACT" (caps and all) several times, and I'm curious to understand it in more detail.

For example, do you mean something like "can calculate to as many places as you wish?" (even a trillion)

Or "can be shown - objectively and in an independently verifiable way - to match experimental results (within the stated uncertainties)"?

Assumptions and labeling. Difficult and useless to trash ALL his ideas with "HE DOES IT" (smoke and mirrors).

Then why is there not a single piece of evidence that isn't consistent with trickery? It's not difficult AT ALL. It's the only explanation that's completely consistent with all the evidence there is.

And how come no one can take his 1,000+ page publication of his theory and make it work? Every obstacle that Mills has claimed is one that many other scientists on this planet knows how to fix.

If Mills fantastic claims about his theory were true, someone, in fact many people probably many entire companies, would have gotten rich off of it by now. We're talking about a technology that he claims can dominate a 9 trillion per year energy market.

And don't give me any ******** about his patents stopping this or whatever the excuse of the day is. If there were any truth to the claims made about his device someone else would have pursued them by now. And Mills himself would get rich in the process. Even if the first company/country to develop his ideas was outside his legal reach the money and power and politics of the 9 trillion per year energy market are such that eventually someone within his legal reach would have to pay him off.

The simple fact is that the "facts" of this situation simply do not happen on the real planet Earth. On the one hand Mills and his supporters claim he has made his theory public via his book and his patents. Yet on the other hand BLP is somehow keeping some knowledge secret that prevents other people from confirming his theory or his devices. That simply does not add up and does not add up in a big way.

__________________REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

For now, simply I can't trash ALL Mills assertions because, like in the lepton masses, I think ANYONE in the past didn't do it in a so simple and ab initio way. Am I wrong?

<snip>

Marco, have you heard of the phrase "fitting formula"? Or perhaps "empirically robust association"?

My university training in chemistry is now many decades' old, so my understanding of the field suffers from both my hazy memory and severe out-of-dateness. However, isn't it true that there are quite a few of these things, in chemistry? In my current field - astronomy - there are lots!

Some time ago - over a decade - I amused myself one vacation by playing with some simple functions (powers, log, etc) and numbers (e, 2, etc), with the aim of producing some of these. I remember being astonished at how easy it was.

Of course, I was under no illusion that any of this was science (except to the extent, perhaps, of finding a good alternative or two), and certainly had nothing to do with theory.

And so to Mills: it seems that he has found quite a few of these fitting formulae, some of which are quite impressive. However, where he fails - badly IMHO - is in claiming that these have anything to do with physics.

You see, his claimed underlying theory is - to put it politely - rubbish. It is internally inconsistent. It is riddled with (often quite basic) mathematical errors. It makes lots of "predictions" which are inconsistent with experimental results. And so on.

Of course, if all you're interested in is nice fitting formulae, by all means have fun. But please, if this is so, say so explicitly.

Sorry for not quoting all the people here: I've just read your multiple (and many) answers. Sorry also to not to be 100% precise: in many case these my wrong words create futile "OT ramifications" of a discussion... I really don't want to be a troll.

Simply I can say: maybe I haven't enough time to spent in this particular task, about Mills, and I'm sorry for this. Talking with you here make me realize (an other time) that: to interest, seek, find, read and verify other peer-reviewed papers is a time-consuming task, more consuming than replicating it (if there isn't anyone else that (re)produce some other publications about it). I conclude, for my straight-thinking mind, that for me the stuff for now is something like 60% scam (dismissed) and 40% "maybe I will dedicate more time in the future for this" because of "something interesting" in it (or only fascinating?). And for more time I assume that for some reasons, if lucky, one day I will be in the situation to replicate and measure by myself this kind of assertions and experiments with my own lab, instruments, hands and eyes.

To JeanTate: sorry to use this term again (exact): I mean it when solved formulas (also by a iteration or other numerical methods) give the same (coincident by a very very little error) numbers measured in reality.

So, I imagine that: for many people like me, and maybe many of you, consuming time in futile tasks is a frustrating issue. And reading and follow Mills' assertions (and the ones of his fans and detractors) is a task that gives many times this feeling... Am I wrong?

For now, I'll use Millsian only to create some goodlooking images of molecules ) LOL
Greetings people,
MM

Then why is there not a single piece of evidence that isn't consistent with trickery? It's not difficult AT ALL. It's the only explanation that's completely consistent with all the evidence there is.

And how come no one can take his 1,000+ page publication of his theory and make it work? Every obstacle that Mills has claimed is one that many other scientists on this planet knows how to fix.

If Mills fantastic claims about his theory were true, someone, in fact many people probably many entire companies, would have gotten rich off of it by now. We're talking about a technology that he claims can dominate a 9 trillion per year energy market.

And don't give me any ******** about his patents stopping this or whatever the excuse of the day is. If there were any truth to the claims made about his device someone else would have pursued them by now. And Mills himself would get rich in the process. Even if the first company/country to develop his ideas was outside his legal reach the money and power and politics of the 9 trillion per year energy market are such that eventually someone within his legal reach would have to pay him off.

The simple fact is that the "facts" of this situation simply do not happen on the real planet Earth. On the one hand Mills and his supporters claim he has made his theory public via his book and his patents. Yet on the other hand BLP is somehow keeping some knowledge secret that prevents other people from confirming his theory or his devices. That simply does not add up and does not add up in a big way.

I nearly agree with you: this thoughts are similar to my ones, like <<mmmm... why this monstrous late in spreading this world-saving technology?!?! Money apart, if you, scientist, and human, will spread this "holy grail" recipe, you're going to be a hero and saving us to extinction, no?!?>>. No way, it's not appening again... So, summing: these are my 60% scam feelings.

Marco, would you please explain - in some detail - what you mean by "It's simply not 100% working"? ["It" = "QM"] Thank you in advance.

This one is very important: I mean, another time, that QM (used and applied with atoms and molecules) is the best approximation we have. But not a safe and exact model.

In other words, or using the spaceship analogy: with this kind of uneliminable error (correlation error) we simply can't send any spaceship in space.. Imagine the situation: <oh, guys! The spaceship is missing Mars by 200'000 Km and going out in the space void forever!! ...Oooh dear, don't be a pussy! You just know that can appen, it's our best model!!> Nope. not for me. Newtonian Mechanics just sent us out of Earth with nearly exact numbers, because it's numerically exact (sorry, again) model.

It's a very big modern issue. Still present. No way. QM is QUITE good.
MM

This one is very important: I mean, another time, that QM (used and applied with atoms and molecules) is the best approximation we have. But not a safe and exact model.

In other words, or using the spaceship analogy: with this kind of uneliminable error (correlation error) we simply can't send any spaceship in space.. Imagine the situation: <oh, guys! The spaceship is missing Mars by 200'000 Km and going out in the space void forever!! ...Oooh dear, don't be a pussy! You just know that can appen, it's our best model!!> Nope. not for me. Newtonian Mechanics just sent us out of Earth with nearly exact numbers, because it's numerically exact (sorry, again) model.

It's a very big modern issue. Still present. No way. QM is QUITE good.
MM

Its not quite good, its the best we have. Nothing else comes close.
Taking Mill's rejection of QM for instance means that both NMR and Scanning Tunneling Microscopy would not work, as those cannot be classically explained, especially NMR which is entirely based upon quantum spin states of a nucleus.

As a chemist I presume you have used NMR. And thus that technique alone totally invalidates Mill's theories.

Also Mills' purpose is remarkable, but I don't get why, if hydrino works, hydrino products are lating so much to be spread...

Keep in mind, as you ponder this, that Mills has claimed to have a market-ready product only months away from mass-production several times since the 90s. The most kind interpretation of this fact by Mills supporters is that he becomes "over-enthusiastic" when talking about what he's accomplished, or that he makes "forwards-looking statements" without identifying them as such. Another, less charitable interpretation from Mills supporters is that he's had to lie about his achievements in the past because he's operating in a competitive market and everybody else lies, too, so he's had to in order to compete. I'm sure you can guess the less charitable interpretations from people who aren't supporters.

Whichever explanation is true, or is to be preferred, I can't say why anybody should believe that his statements are accurate now. I don't know what basis there is supposed to be for believing that this time everything is 100% true.

And that has essentially been done, as one author (kunz?) showed that the results he was reporting could not have been obtained with the equipment he was using.

Then Mills used equipment that could show those results, and the results were the same as from the equipment that couldn't. Which should be a huge red flag for anybody, because that's one hell of a coincidence.

Keep in mind, as you ponder this, that Mills has claimed to have a market-ready product only months away from mass-production several times since the 90s. The most kind interpretation of this fact by Mills supporters is that he becomes "over-enthusiastic" when talking about what he's accomplished, or that he makes "forwards-looking statements" without identifying them as such. Another, less charitable interpretation from Mills supporters is that he's had to lie about his achievements in the past because he's operating in a competitive market and everybody else lies, too, so he's had to in order to compete. I'm sure you can guess the less charitable interpretations from people who aren't supporters..

And let me add that that is a bogus excuse because he has claimed to actually be doing things at the moment that later turned out not to actually be happening. BLP is right now claiming to have Product Hydrino® “in a bottle. No evidence that product exists though.

__________________REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Its not quite good, its the best we have. Nothing else comes close.
Taking Mill's rejection of QM for instance means that both NMR and Scanning Tunneling Microscopy would not work, as those cannot be classically explained, especially NMR which is entirely based upon quantum spin states of a nucleus.

As a chemist I presume you have used NMR. And thus that technique alone totally invalidates Mill's theories.

Let's be more precise: it's not Quantum Mechanics itself not precise, because it simply exist and is a natural phenomenon, but is the mathematical model of its physics the not right... So, the actual Schrodinger formulation of a QM problem [the Hamiltonian form H(phi)=E(phi) ...sorry for the text], transposed with a multi-nuclei and multi-electron problem, sthen introducing big approximation like the linear combination of the atomic orbitals (which are also traformed with gaussian for an other approximation...), IS DELUDING and NOT PRECISE (not at all for the small to big molecules).

So the natural observation of quantized energy states doesn't mean that if I name his mathematical model "quantum mechanics" is the exact model of it.
We must take our model and maybe re-think its math ab initio, because is clearly lacking something if we ever found this intrinsic error, no?

Oh yeah! About NMR: has someone else other than Mills analized the so-called "hydrino hydrides" produced by them (they may be disposable to send the sample, no?) measuring this negative-ppm absorptions? I think it will be a best evidence also than Raman...

I'm not saying someone should try to NMR something Mills claims exists (but has never shown to anyone not on his payroll), I'm saying that the fact that NMR works means Mill's theories are wrong, as he claims it cannot work.

After all, like I said, it works with spin states, which Mills claims do not exist.

To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills. My assumption was that the raman spectra was real. So: is it simulated, sketched or something else? Is Mills spending a lot of time sketching false spectra? If so, and if I can be sure of it, I'm leaving the forum right now because there isn't anything interesting in Mills.

Something else, as stated, simply configuring the equipment outside the useful application of that equipment.

I think W.D.Clinger gave an analysis of that specific configuration up thread.

Let's be more precise: it's not Quantum Mechanics itself not precise, because it simply exist and is a natural phenomenon, but is the mathematical model of its physics the not right... So, the actual Schrodinger formulation of a QM problem [the Hamiltonian form H(phi)=E(phi) ...sorry for the text], transposed with a multi-nuclei and multi-electron problem, sthen introducing big approximation like the linear combination of the atomic orbitals (which are also traformed with gaussian for an other approximation...), IS DELUDING and NOT PRECISE (not at all for the small to big molecules).

So the natural observation of quantized energy states doesn't mean that if I name his mathematical model "quantum mechanics" is the exact model of it.
We must take our model and maybe re-think its math ab initio, because is clearly lacking something if we ever found this intrinsic error, no?

Oh yeah! About NMR: has someone else other than Mills analized the so-called "hydrino hydrides" produced by them (they may be disposable to send the sample, no?) measuring this negative-ppm absorptions? I think it will be a best evidence also than Raman...

MM

You are looking at this from a very specific point of view. As a physicist, I have no doubt that QM is correct, though I believe it to not be complete (but that is a different discussion).

The problem with finding precise answers to complex problems is -- how do you set up the problem? The numerical computations are difficult in themselves, but what interactions do you take into account, and how do you write the Hamiltonian?

You are criticizing QM from the point of view of "I want my answer to perfect and precise", which is incredibly difficult to do. It is far easier to find the patterns in the empirical results, and then pretend to have a model that explains the patterns (without actually explaining anything).

For situations where people have spent considerable time figuring out how to properly set up the problem, QM does give precise answers.

I have worked a lot in Solid State physics, and I can tell you that QM is absolutely required for it. None of our modern electronics, lasers, etc. would work with a Millsian theory. Even then, the QM models we use are approximations (deliberately), as it is a practical impossibility to solve as an "exact" answer. Instead, we get a close answer, and can actually work with analytical expressions. Approximations are your friend.

I'm not saying someone should try to NMR something Mills claims exists (but has never shown to anyone not on his payroll), I'm saying that the fact that NMR works means Mill's theories are wrong, as he claims it cannot work.

After all, like I said, it works with spin states, which Mills claims do not exist.

Had he really stated it? His model is about the bound electron, it's not a model for the nuclei... Also, I remember some words of in his book: the spin of the electron is given by the circulation of the current of the orbisphere (closing a circuit, a magnetic field will arise). I think this is also a good explanation of the occurence of spin, IF the Mills model is taken as good, obviously. But, as I remember, I didn't read anything about its non-existence.

You are looking at this from a very specific point of view. As a physicist, I have no doubt that QM is correct, though I believe it to not be complete (but that is a different discussion).

The problem with finding precise answers to complex problems is -- how do you set up the problem? The numerical computations are difficult in themselves, but what interactions do you take into account, and how do you write the Hamiltonian?

You are criticizing QM from the point of view of "I want my answer to perfect and precise", which is incredibly difficult to do. It is far easier to find the patterns in the empirical results, and then pretend to have a model that explains the patterns (without actually explaining anything).

For situations where people have spent considerable time figuring out how to properly set up the problem, QM does give precise answers.

I have worked a lot in Solid State physics, and I can tell you that QM is absolutely required for it. None of our modern electronics, lasers, etc. would work with a Millsian theory. Even then, the QM models we use are approximations (deliberately), as it is a practical impossibility to solve as an "exact" answer. Instead, we get a close answer, and can actually work with analytical expressions. Approximations are your friend.

I'm not criticizing QM, again. I'm only saying that's our dear and only best approximation, no?

I want add something, in addition to the question of spin above: in QM calculation models (ever talking about molecules), also the most good ones, the spin simply isn't taken into account. Iteration by iteration, the attraction-repulsion of electrons and nuclei (e/n, e/e and n/n) is calculated only integrating the STATIC electron density of the previous interation. I mean: how can we calculate the occurence of the magnetic field in such a system if it's a dynamic process of charged particles?! I think that's a good starting point to get our models better, no? (mea culpa: study more math and programming!!). This thing is one where Mills TRY to furnish an explanation, so here I'll give him a cent.

Had he really stated it? His model is about the bound electron, it's not a model for the nuclei... Also, I remember some words of in his book: the spin of the electron is given by the circulation of the current of the orbisphere (closing a circuit, a magnetic field will arise). I think this is also a good explanation of the occurence of spin, IF the Mills model is taken as good, obviously. But, as I remember, I didn't read anything about its non-existence.

Yes, and his most devoted defenders here have repeatedly reiterated that. Mill's claim is that all atoms can be described fully classically and thus that QM is some form of conspiracy because.... something or other. In fact, markie has even claimed on repeated occasions that if only science would abandon QM we'd have even MORE inventions, based upon Mills' book.

As with all fringe science, neither they nor Mills have a real understanding of all the ramifications of their pet theory outside of the very niche area it is applied in.
I'm not suprised they ignore NMR and similar techniques as, like I said, their very existence and applicability invalidate the very basis of Mills' theory.

In the same way that the more obvious chemical implications are ignored, like the fact that if Mills would be right, solid state electronics would also non-functional.

Of course, Mills does not really care, his technobabble needs to be *just* convincing enough to get investors for his next 'almost ready' invention that 'just needs a bit of engineering', only to change the technobabble two to three years later.

To "Reality Check": really I don't get why my calculations are not for this thread,...

Because if you are using his equations from his deluded book to get his incorrect numbers then you are wasting our time. If you have a different theory from Mills then your calculations from that not-Mills theory is not relevant to a Mills thread.

Let's be more precise: it's not Quantum Mechanics itself not precise, because it simply exist and is a natural phenomenon, but is the mathematical model of its physics the not right...

I think that what you are really talking about MarcoM85BG, are the solutions for QM.

This is actually irrelevant to the subject of Mills theory and devices. Even if QM was totally wrong, that would not make his theory correct unless Mills could show that the only 2 possible theories were his or QM. This is called the logical fallacy of false dichotomy or dilemma. Theory A being wrong does not automatically make theory B correct if theory C exists. Theory A being right certainly does not make theory B right!

However QM has exact solutions for simple systems and methods to get solutions for complex systems. These solutions can be precise and are not deluding. They have limits, e.g. perturbation theory assumes that a system is a small perturbation from an exact solution. That works in general outside of an atomic nucleus, roughly for an atomic nucleus and not always for inside protons and neutrons (quantum chromodynamics).

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.